The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: The only difference between 0.3+0.03+...+ 3/10^n and
0.3+0.03+...+ 3/10^n + ... is the ELLIPSIS.

Replies: 5   Last Post: Oct 13, 2017 11:49 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Karl-Olav Nyberg

Posts: 1,539
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: The only difference between 0.3+0.03+...+ 3/10^n and
0.3+0.03+...+ 3/10^n + ... is the ELLIPSIS.

Posted: Oct 13, 2017 7:31 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

lørdag 14. oktober 2017 01.15.49 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel følgende:
> On Friday, 13 October 2017 19:06:14 UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 October 2017 18:47:39 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > lørdag 14. oktober 2017 00.29.10 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel følgende:
> > > > On Friday, 13 October 2017 15:02:56 UTC-4, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > > > Den söndag 8 oktober 2017 kl. 07:49:48 UTC+2 skrev Zelos Malum:
> > > > > > Den söndag 8 oktober 2017 kl. 02:38:24 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 7 October 2017 20:25:29 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 1:20:48 PM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote:
> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > S = 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ... +3/10^n
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Look, idiot, since the "value" of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ... +3/10^n

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What a retard you are. No one gives a shit about the value of 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ... +3/10^n you imbecile! It's not important for any particular n. Moooorooooon!!! The LIMIT does not care about a particular n.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > depends on n, we usually write:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > S(n) = 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ... +3/10^n (n e IN)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On the other hand, if n is just a certain (fixed) natural number we might of course denote the sum
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ... +3/10^n
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > with the constant "S". But I guess that's not what you have in mind here.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No stupid! S is the same as S(n) as far as the LIMIT is concerned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > S_series = 0.9+0.09+0.009+...
> > > > > > > S_sequence = {0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...}
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lim S_Series = 1 = Lim S_sequence
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hence you HAVE TO write
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > S(n) = 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ... +3/10^n .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Otherwise we could easilly derive a contradition. If
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > S = 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.03 + ... +3/10^n
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > for ANY (arbitrary) n e IN, then especially for n = 1:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > S = 0.3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and for n = 2:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > S = 0.33 .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hence 0.3 = 0.33 in Gabriel's word.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not what it means idiot!!!!!! When Euler referred to S, it was clear he meant the entire mythical "infinite" series. That is the justification for why mainstream morons like yourself write 0.999...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can't you see this? You have no other justification for writing 0.999... or 0.333... or 1.414..., etc. Euler considered S to be the entire series.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When he wrote S = Lim S, he meant what I have been telling you ALL along:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The series is equated to its limit. But the series is NOT the same as the limit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's like saying apple = mercedes.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Get a grip, man!

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes. Get a grip you fucking idiot!

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Listen gabriel, just because you cannot use basic notation and understand the importans of having it clear, doesn't mean he is wrong.

> > > > >
> > > > > Well, according to Gabriel sin(0)/0 = 1,

> > > >
> > > > sin(0)/0 = 1 is correct you huge baboon.
> > > >

> > > > > so I wouldn't expect much from a crank like him.
> > > >
> > > > You are a crank.

> > >
> > > How can anything like sin(0)/0 = 1 be correct?
> > > How can the expression sin(0)/0 be defined?
> > > KON

> >
> > I have explained many times. For the LAST time:
> >
> > f(x) = 1 - x^2/3! + x^4/5! - ...
> >
> > g(x) = x/x * f(x) = sin(x) / x
> >
> > So g(x) is simply an equivalent fraction expression of f(x).
> > That is, g(x) = f(x) because x/x = 1.
> >
> > Now since f(0) is defined to be 1, it follows that g(0) must also be 1.
> >
> > So sin(0)/0 = 1.

>
> You cannot punch a hole in f(x) by multiplying it by x/x. Nor can you ever assume in any logic that x/x is 0/0, for if this were true, then you could not form g(x) in the first place?!!! DID YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
>
> If there is any doubt about x/x being anything else besides 1, then you can't ever have sin(x)/x. Now to get sin(x)/x we multiply f(x) by 1. To get back to f(x), we divide by x/x or 1. f(x) is the REDUCED form of g(x).
>
> No limit theory, no crap, no other nonsense.


You cannot say that x/x = 0/0 = 1
You can say that lim (x->0)(x/x) = 1
You see the difference?
KON



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.